Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the side effects: nothing is deleted, current steps are snapshotted as a version first, and the restored steps become a new version. It also discloses the interaction with deployments. The only soft tension is that repeated calls will keep producing new versions, which sits slightly awkwardly with idempotentHint=true, but the description does not assert the opposite state of affairs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its most important safety property (nothing is deleted). Each sentence carries distinct information; no repetition or padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: side effects, versioning behavior, and the deployment interaction. A return value (e.g., the new version identifier) and permission requirements are the remaining gaps, but they are minor for this tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: version_id is well documented in the schema ('From list_versions, or undo.version_id of a step change'), but workflow_id has no description anywhere. The description implies a workflow is targeted ('a workflow's steps') but adds no format, source, or constraint detail for workflow_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus the scope: 'Put a workflow's steps back as they were in an earlier version.' This clearly separates it from the deploy/restore siblings at the level of what it operates on (a version of steps, not the workflow itself), though it never explicitly contrasts with 'restore_workflow'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an interaction rule ('Tell the person what will change before restoring') and clarifies that a deployment is untouched until 'deploy_workflow', which is genuine guidance. It does not state prerequisites or when to prefer a different restore path, so the when/when-not is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.